Experinced based learning degrees

Going back to Markisrael's comment about TESC, there seem to be double standards about experience based degrees. Reading the TESC site, they do allow a person to complete the degree based on portfolio assessment. What is wrong then if a school focuses on offering degrees by this means. Provided they uphold the same standards.

People may misunderstand when I say experienced based. I would say that most people will have some kind of education in their career, so they would have some credit. Plus most jobs provide training for various reasons.

Its a wholistic approach and thats why I like the learning contract approach based on a body of knowledge.

 

Which school not already accredited does this? I mean, award degrees for life/work experience, yet upholds the same standards as accredited schools who award credits (not degrees, credits)?

TESC doesn't award degrees for life/work experience. They will, however, award credit towards degrees for prior learning assessed by portfolio. I guess, theoretically, a person could earn an entire degree via this method, but that's a long way from offering and awarding a degree via that method.

Again, which school not already accredited offers entire degrees like this AND maintains sufficient standards and processes? If they did, they'd have to accommodate students who didn't quite make it, and have systems in place to provide--or, at least, document--new learning necessary to complete their degrees.

Which school not already accredited does this?

 

I do not know and it does not matter to me. What I am getting across is that there could be alternate credible ways to convert experience into credit or demonstrate the knowledge in such a way that gets recognition.

TESC does allow you to earn enough credit to get a degree. I am sure a lot of that portfolio assessment may have involved non-credit training and other learning activities.

The more I read about it, I think the credit system does have some limitations in respect to ensuring competence in a specific area. What does US history have to do with been an engineer? I am not saying that you should not learn US history but someone in Israel doing engineering will not do US history.

I think there is a common body of knowledge that makes up a profession and of course there are foundation areas such english and quantitative skills.

Take the PMP which is offered by the PMI, with some addition foundation courses that person could easily be given a degree in Project Management.

Its very likely that you may need to take classes to complete the degree but at least it can be built around that experience.

 

You keep saying "experienced based degrees." What are you talking about exactly. It needs clarification because you appear to be using it synonymously with "prior learning." Perhaps the difference is not at first apparent, but nonetheless, the difference is profound. Profound enough that COSC goes to great lengths to point out the difference. I can experience everything and never learn anything. Experience is subjective and cannot be measured.

 

To clarify I would say learning based on experiences and training or non-credit type learning.

 

To add to that. I think the term experience is used more in the context that a person demonstrates their learning by the ability to perform specific functions.

So the experience is kind of saying that you have learnt. This is where the validation process is required because people can experience things but did not learning anything. I strongly support getting proof of learning.

 

I think it would be easier for a place like the UK to start something like what you propose, since they don't have 'credits.' I think the credits system in the US is too rigid a system to adjust. In the UK for instance, you would not have to worry about general education requirements.

 

The UK does have general education requirements. That is mostly covered by A-levels or foundation year in some schools.

 

Rich,

Back in the sixth post in this thread, morleyl cited St. Regis as an example of a school that does a good job at implementing a system like the one he is advocating.

 

Yes, but I asked which school, not which degree mill.

 

Not really. I grew up in England and my wife is English. After GCSE's you choose two or three A-levels in specific subjects.

The History of Nazi Germany, Geology, and Geography are what my wife chose. That is a far cry from a general education. Also, as much as I love my wife - she writes like crap and she needs to take three remedial level math courses before she can take a Freshman level one here. Yet she did well on her GCSE's and A-levels.

Personally, I like the UK system a little more overall. However, the UK should focus a little more on general education. When I moved there when I was 13 my English class did not know that you had to capitalize the letter "I" when it stood independently (and I went to a "posh" school!).

 

Hi:

You have a very good point which in the end underscore what I was getting at in the first place.

What I am saying is that someone with experience and not everyone here, would overtime learn general as well as professional stuff. I think a research degree type stuff would address a lot of those general skills that people need.

In respect to the UK system or your specific experience, I am sure you could probably find the same thing here too. Which means that the person who gets the regular degree may not necessarily have a better intellectual values than an experienced person.

What I am trying to stress is balance and not necessarily promoting one over the other. I am sure there is not a lot of people who would easily get a degree without doing some work. At least the portfolio assessment seem to be a lot of work and probably its easier to just take a course in some cases.

The best option then would be doing research papers for those who are experienced.

 

If that's what you are saying, I now understand why I was confused.

Could you perhaps paraphrase "what you are saying?"

 

Hi Jeff:

Let me see if I can help here.

What I am saying is that this path obviously not for everyone. The other thing I am saying is that people learning both general education as well as professional stuff over time.

Lets say two experienced person apply to a university, they will not exactly have the same knowledge of their field. So my view is that a learning contract would focus on the areas that needs attention.

One person may have jobs that makes them a good writer while the other may have a job that focuses more on other skills. What I am getting at is a scheme that looks at the knowledge try to achieve a common outcome.

 

What path????

The St Regis path that you advocated earlier?

What exactly would you do differently from the RA institutions that are operating today?

 

Hi Jeff:

I am actually not sure what path St. regis actual promote. I am sure they proposed the experience based approach at some point. That does not mean I agree with them.

What I would propose today that I have not seen with a RA institution is an efficient way to upgrade an experience person to an academic graduate. TESC and WGU seem to come the closest but I think their cost is high for the purpose.

Please understand that I am ignorant of which school offers what in general but I have not seen any that takes your background, verify the knowledge and give you a degree in any field within a reasonable time and cost.

I do think a lot of the reason is money as oppose to academic standard. Obviously if you start to let people get a degree for $2000 then you will make less money and may be called a diploma mill.

I am not proposing that new schools provide this type of stuff, but that existing schools should be honest and allow people to demonstrate their learning without the red tape.

 

Perhaps it is too high. If so, in a free market, competitors would jump in to offer a similar product at a lower cost. RA education is not a free market. The barriers -- governmental, institutional, and consequently, financial -- are enormous. I think this is a problem. But it does not indicate ANY inadequacy in the assesment methods they use.

I have never once, EVER, seen ANY school called a diploma mill because their tuition was too low, or because their profit margin was too low.

However, it does take money to run a legitimate university. Low tuition may be a sign of a mill (can any real school operate by charging $100 for a bachelor's degree?) On the other hand, there are plenty of mills that charge more than many legitimate RA schools.

 

There are two separate topics that seem to be in this thread: certifying experience for professional advancement (licensing/certification) and using life experience for earning a degree.

As to the first certifying experience for professional advancement

This exists in the registration/licensing area which is usually handled by each state and you do not need a degree for this (although a degree will help as it shortens the time required), but you do have to prove your knowledge and expertise. Part of this is a verification that your resume is accurate and correct. Usually by getting several people whom are already registered/licensed to sign sworn statements that they have individual knowledge of your abilities. And then you take a test.

Next is earning a degree:

Again you have a resume that you then expand by giving details of what you have learned and applied and how it pertains to the degree you want to be awarded. This is called portfolio assessment. A very good description of this that follows almost exactly along morleyl’s original concept is listed at James Madison University .

So what is the point of this discussion beyond semantics. If what you want is a verifiable method of equating life experience to education, but do not like the term portfolio assessment, how about Prior Learning Assessment or assessing experiential college level learning? Unfortunately (in the US) this is usually shortened to portfolio assessment.

 

Hi:

I looked at the James Madison site and the TESC approach seems more flexible. I noticed they put a lot of conditions on what credit can be used towards the degree.

In end what am I saying, the concept I was more interested in was similar to how you get a state license except maybe for the general education requirements which could be filled using exams that are already out there.

My view is to get someone a credible degree without too much red tape but maintaining quality.

Okay

 

I am confident that I could portfolio several IT/web related credits, but as you say, it is easier and quicker for me to take an exam to fill in those empty credits. I agree that it should be a little easier to portfolio credits. For example, why can't I just send them a CD of a website I created to verify that the link I give them is a website I created. Why do I need 10 pages of text to prove that I know HTML/DHTML/JavaScript?

You have a point that an easier way to portfolio would be an advantage.